Scientific journal whose main aim is to publish materials aimed at the study of society and human relations in society as well as economic relations. A distinctive feature of the manuscripts submitted to the journal, is the emphasis on the use of system analysis techniques, allows to see new discoveries at the intersection of different fields of knowledge.

Publication frequency: bimonthly.

ISSN 2504-5571 (Online), ISSN 2504-5563 (Print)

Steven M. Shardlow, Keele University, School of Public Policy and Professional Practice, Faculty Member, United Kingdom

1. All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. An editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it as requiring improvement. The author is obliged to improve the article according to the remarks of the reviewers and the editorial board.

2. An editor should considerate all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). 3. An editor should consider manuscript submitted for publication without delays.

4. The whole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of an article rests with the editor. Responsible and reasonable approach to the duty requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, Doctor of Science of required specialty, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if considered by the Editors to be inappropriate for the journal.

5. The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. After a positive decision has been made about a manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.

6. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.

7. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to other qualified person, such as a member of its Editorial Board.

8. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a report published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.

9. An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript. This might be the case, for example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

1. Main duty of an author is to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. An author should be aware that journal space is a limited resource and should use it wisely and economically.

3. A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. When requested, the authors should make a reasonable effort to provide samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere, with appropriate material transfer agreements to restrict the field of use of the materials so as to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.

4. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non author.

5. Any unusual hazards appearing during an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.

6. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study.

7. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.

8. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a “communication” or “letter”) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.

9. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.

10. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of another scientist. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.

11. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.

12. The authors should reveal to the editor and to the readers of the journal any potential and/or relevant competing financial or other interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. All authors should not have any personal significant financial interest and employment or other relationship with entities that have a financial or other interest which can affect the results described by the manuscript.

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1. As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.

3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest.

5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.

6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.

7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.

8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

9. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.

10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work.